TX: Ports to Plains corridor study

[Bobby5280]

A turnpike to Woodward (or more accurately for what I'm about to say, to Fort Supply) may not bring people all the way to their destination, but it would at least bring them to a spot where portions of the traffic goes their separate ways to western Kansas or continue on down the panhandle toward Denver.

If you're wanting to facilitate Denver-OKC traffic, it may be better later on to extend the turnpike to somewhere it could turn north and enter Colorado without clipping the corner of Kansas. Southwest Kansas wouldn't benefit much from a Denver-OKC freeway, so it could make it more buildable to just leave them out of the loop, even though that would increase the mileage somewhat. ETA: The other option, going through SW KS, would probably involve using US-183 to K-23 to US-50/400, then cut northwest at Garden City and cross into Colorado west of Tribune. That would at least make it worth it for Kansas to get involved, as it'd serve the two biggish cities in that part of the state (Garden and Dodge City).

The route I had in mind would go from Woodward (and Fort Supply where the OK-3 diagonal ends) up to the Southern outskirts of Garden City, KS and then go diagonally up to Kit Carson, CO -where it would overlap the Ports to Plains Corridor to Limon and I-70. That would create a fairly straight shot between Denver and OKC.

From Fort Supply to Kit Carson the road would have to be all new highway. It would be an interesting experiment just to build something out on that path as an upgrade-able Super 2, even with at grade intersections -just to get the corridor started. I think the road would get a lot of use immediately.

No more toll roads in Oklahoma please.

We pretty much can't get new super highways built in Oklahoma without them being toll roads.

Here's another funny thing about toll roads in the US. They don't all have the same toll costs. When I hear people in Oklahoma gripe about the toll roads I immediately think they're clueless about toll prices elsewhere. If they had driven E-470 in Denver, or even express lanes in DFW during peak times, they would then see the toll prices on Oklahoma's turnpikes are a bargain.

So I don't mind driving on toll roads, just as long as I'm not getting price gouged.

[sparker]

No more toll roads in Oklahoma please.

The only way to get anything done in a timely manner is toll roads, unless somehow we get a state constitutional amendment passed to give ODOT bonding power.

I don't mind toll roads so much because I don't have to go anywhere that requires using them on a regular basis, and our state highway system is robust enough that they can be bypassed on conventional roads if you just don't feel like paying.

The problem with deploying a toll road on the corridor in question here -- i.e., 40 miles of US 287 across the Panhandle -- is that the abject lack of toll facilities in the general region means the chances of anyone residing within a couple hundred miles having a toll transponder of any variety isn't terribly great.  There would almost certainly have to be a cash-option lane on such a facility; toll-by-plate would likely result in a sizeable number of out-of-state drivers simply not paying (and the attempted collection costs for those would make the whole tolled concept unsustainable).  Face it -- a corridor crossing a narrow and outflung part of a state is a unique situation; "cookie-cutter" current toll collection policies, which are almost universally automated and invoice-based, wouldn't work well with the P2P.  A couple of manned tollbooths may actually be a mini-boom to local employment!  But OTA should also deploy transponder sensors as well; enough truckers probably have them to make that aspect of the P2P section relatively simple to deal with.  It's the CO or TX regional user that'll likely be a thorn in the side of tolling. 

But the point of providing a non-tolled option, particularly for local residents, is a point well-taken; except for the Boise City bypass, the new P2P corridor would best be a parallel new-terrain facility, tolled or not.

[Bobby5280]

I would prefer an upgraded US-287 through the Oklahoma Panhandle to be a toll free road, even if it is something built up to Interstate standards. But such a road would put much more pressure on the federal government to fund since US-287 provides little direct benefit to the rest of Oklahoma. ODOT and state legislators won't place a high priority on the US-287 corridor balanced against other more significant corridors within the state.

The OTA is moving forward on cash-less tolling with PikePass compatible transponders and pay by plate methods. If a new 40 mile turnpike was built alongside the short US-287 corridor in the OK Panhandle it would be remotely detached from the rest of the OTA toll road network. But the same is true for the new TX-375 toll road in El Paso. It works on the TX Tag toll transponder network, which is now compatible with OTA's PikePass.

Pay by Plate has its own drawbacks, as does tolling by RFID transponders (there are significant numbers of mis-reads). But trying to get a new super highway built solely on a state's gas tax revenues has its own drawbacks. And the drawbacks are gigantic in the case of Oklahoma. Its recent, modest increase on gasoline taxes largely went to fund teacher pay raises, since Oklahoma's public school teachers are among the lowest paid in the nation.

Public school teachers need to be paid much better (and make that profession much more competitive). However, the pay raises should not have come at the expense of highway funding, especially when Oklahoma's roads have been grossly under-funded for decades and continue to be under-funded now. Teachers need salaries paid through more traditional funding mechanisms, but with Oklahoma being a red state and property owners not wanting to pay their fair share in taxes the teachers not only get the short end of the stick, but also get vilified. There is a focused effort by conservatives to bash teachers and public schools in general because they somehow think both are purveyors of liberal thought. Lately that has been countered by teachers leaving Oklahoma in droves and threatening to make the schools in many districts, especially rural ones, inoperable. When a small town's school closes that small town DIES. So the state legislature cooked up the idea to raise gasoline taxes for the first time in decades and use that to pay teachers to try to keep them from leaving.

Getting back to US-287, even though a turnpike way out there would be do-able, I think chances are very low such a thing would be built. A turnpike would have to be built as a parallel facility alongside US-287. Such a road would be easily shun-piked. On the other hand, a "free" US-287 (or I-27) freeway through that area could be built as a direct upgrade of existing US-287, overlapping the existing highway. That would cost less to build.

[Scott5114]

Shunpiking is really not much of a concern in the modern day, since most people plot routes using a satnav device, and the algorithm on those devices will always put you on a controlled-access facility unless you specifically tell it to avoid tolls. Even then, it's obvious that much of the public straight up doesn't bother to do that–the Turner Turnpike is very easily shunpiked by using SH-66 (hell, it even has a song about it!) and yet it's the most profitable road in the entire system. Set the speed limit on US-287 to 65 and the speed limit on the toll road to 80 and it'll sort itself out...

Also, OTA historically doesn't seem to care much whether the roads in their system meet up. The Chickasaw Turnpike is quite a way away from any other OTA road, though not as far as Boise City is. If it was an otherwise insurmountable problem, though, maybe they could contract the maintenance out to ODOT.

I don't know that having a cash collection lane is too much of an impediment. Giving a dozen toll collector jobs to Boise City residents isn't the worst thing in the world.

[sparker]

Shunpiking is really not much of a concern in the modern day, since most people plot routes using a satnav device, and the algorithm on those devices will always put you on a controlled-access facility unless you specifically tell it to avoid tolls. Even then, it's obvious that much of the public straight up doesn't bother to do that–the Turner Turnpike is very easily shunpiked by using SH-66 (hell, it even has a song about it!) and yet it's the most profitable road in the entire system. Set the speed limit on US-287 to 65 and the speed limit on the toll road to 80 and it'll sort itself out...

Also, OTA historically doesn't seem to care much whether the roads in their system meet up. The Chickasaw Turnpike is quite a way away from any other OTA road, though not as far as Boise City is. If it was an otherwise insurmountable problem, though, maybe they could contract the maintenance out to ODOT.

I don't know that having a cash collection lane is too much of an impediment. Giving a dozen toll collector jobs to Boise City residents isn't the worst thing in the world.

It not only wouldn't be an impediment, deploying a "traditional" on-site toll collection system would probably provide, as the above post states, a benefit to Boise City and environs -- an area that would likely welcome a few extra employment opportunities if an outflung turnpike were to be developed.  That being said, if the P2P authorization can garner some of the newly-reinstituted congressional "earmarks", OTA's involvement may not be an issue, as the OK segment of the corridor could simply be a freeway -- and except for in and around Boise City itself, there wouldn't be a substantial amount of interchanges required, keeping the overall costs at a doable level.  But parsing out such details will only happen after the authorizing legislation successfully winds its way through Congress -- job #1 for corridor backers.   

[sprjus4]

The Cherokee Turnpike along US-412 is also not connected to any other part of the system, at least directly.

[bwana39]

; toll-by-plate would likely result in a sizeable number of out-of-state drivers simply not paying (and the attempted collection costs for those would make the whole tolled concept unsustainable). 

It is far easier to collect out-of-state Tolls / Fines than in-state ones. Actually not as easy initially, but the out-of-state scofflaws get the their driver's license, registration, professional licenses, or bonding suspended / revoked  far easier than in-state residents.  As far as that goes it also is the case with delinquent out-of-state child support.

In-state it drags out for months even years. If you live in an out-of-state compact state, they just summarily gig you in as little as 3 months. 

[Bobby5280]

It not only wouldn't be an impediment, deploying a "traditional" on-site toll collection system would probably provide, as the above post states, a benefit to Boise City and environs -- an area that would likely welcome a few extra employment opportunities if an outflung turnpike were to be developed.

Isn't this all going to be a moot point when OTA goes cash-less on all of Oklahoma's turnpike system? Unless I missed the mention of it elsewhere in this or another related thread, does anyone know the time line when the turnpikes will go completely cash-less?

Even for the existing cash lanes still in operation there are limits. They don't have attendants in the toll booths 24 hours per day. Overnight drivers are left on their own to feed coins into coin baskets. And if they need to make change, good luck on that bill changer! They don't always work so well. I remember one bad experience driving back to Lawton from OKC. We were at the Newcastle toll booth in my girlfriend's car. She didn't have a PikePass and avoided getting one for years. It was after midnight. We didn't have enough exact change, so we had to use a bill changer and it was crappy. It ate a couple dollars without giving me any coins. I paid upwards of $4 for what should have been around a $2 toll. Cars were backed up behind us, drivers getting irritated, etc. After that episode my girlfriend relented and finally got a PikePass.

I don't understand why some people in Oklahoma to this day still avoid getting a PikePass. Don't they realize you get a modest discount on the tolls? You don't have to slow down and stop at a toll booth (unless you're going through the crappy Walters toll booth on I-44).

[Scott5114]

In my experience, the cash lanes at the mainline plazas on the Turner and Will Rogers are always staffed. The sidegate plazas are hit or miss.

I didn't get a PikePass for years simply because I didn't use the turnpikes often enough to bother with setting up (I live on the opposite side of the OKC metro from the Kilpatrick Turnpike, and rarely have a reason to go to Lawton or Tulsa–any time I wanted to use a turnpike, it was known well enough in advance that I could grab my change jar). I only got one in preparation of a trip to South Texas so I could use TX-130. Now I use it fairly frequently, since one of the businesses I own is located off the Norman Spur.

[In_Correct]

There needs to be more toll roads. Every new Superhighway needs to be a Toll Road. Nothing changes in The Oklahoma 8 Year Plan. They simply modify the F.F.Y. Dates. Also, The Chickasaw Turnpike needs to be finished.

Since Small Towns do not want to be Bypassed claiming that it would reduce customers, placing Toll Roads near the Small Towns would benefit the local economies. Building Archways would also help.

And U.S. 287 would be a perfect part of Ports To Plains. Very large travel plazas would also be important.

[bwana39]

While I am not sure that I don't agree that we may not need more INTERSTATES, I clearly believe we need highway upgrades. That is more lanes at places, fewer red lights, stop signs, and more highway-speed miles. Part of the infrastructure problems is overuse.  Expanding capacities is the answer.

My issue with interstates comes from my home state TEXAS. Due to access laws, through frontage roads are almost a given. So almost any time you build a four-lane freeway, you build eight lanes of road.  I fully agree that there need to be significant upgrades in the ports-to-plains corridor. All of it should be four-lane divided highway with a MINIMUM speed limit of 65 MPH. That means controlled access loops around most if not all of the cities and towns.  It means an interstate grade facility at points. It means grade separated overpasses at major intersections.  On the other hand, most of the rural stretches could be what TXDOT calls Multi-lane Rural Highway (4-lane divided).  Yes, there would be multiple uncontrolled access points. There would be crossovers.

Far more value for the buck, but not an interstate.

[Plutonic Panda]

No more toll roads in Oklahoma please.

We pretty much can't get new super highways built in Oklahoma without them being toll roads.

Here's another funny thing about toll roads in the US. They don't all have the same toll costs. When I hear people in Oklahoma gripe about the toll roads I immediately think they're clueless about toll prices elsewhere. If they had driven E-470 in Denver, or even express lanes in DFW during peak times, they would then see the toll prices on Oklahoma's turnpikes are a bargain.

So I don't mind driving on toll roads, just as long as I'm not getting price gouged.

I don't like basically paying twice for roads. If we want to switch to all tolls fine but that money should exclusively be used for freeways & roads and all other user fees like registration fees and fuel taxes removed.

I personally would love an OKC to Denver interstate. If such an initiative like P2P is funded I agree that lots of the northern portions likely won't be full interstate but I find it odd how OKC was not included with the influence zone on the map yet far flung cities to the north are. Are all of these cities marketing themselves for this or was that just purely conceptual by the senators who proposed this?

I don't know if the traffic exists for such a facility but I wonder if a direct high speed interstate from OKC to Denver with an 80-85 MPH speed limit would entice any traffic from Dallas. Currently traffic from Dallas to Denver points NW but treks through a lot of non-interstate quality roads.

I'm borderlining Frizt Owl territory with this and after I'll shut up about but if a connection was made from Texarkana to OKC it would provide a more direct route to Denver from New Orleans. Ideally if such a route could be justified from Louisiana to Denver crossing through OKC potentially luring some DFW traffic as well maybe it could be justified.

[kphoger]

I didn't think the P2P was intended to become a full freeway–just a four-lane divided route.

From the description of the proposed legislation, it looks like an I-27 designation will be applied; how much of the corridor will fall under Interstate standards is still TBD.  Probably all of the TX mileage; and hopefully at least the portion north to Limon, although there might be localized lobbying for Interstate status for the Raton "branch".  If the overall $$ outlay looks like it might be prohibitive, north of Dumas (TX) possibly only one option, to Raton or to Limon, would include the I-27 appendage legislation (IMO, hopefully the latter).  North of I-70, I have my doubts as to whether any proposed corridor segments would warrant Interstate standards; if I-27 eventually extends from Laredo to Limon, that would be more than enough to expedite commercial traffic between the more populated sections of the Front Range and Texas.  North of there, divided 4-lanes, expressway sections; the Midwest "model" of town bypasses connected by divided 4-lane would be more than sufficient for the principal N-S arteries; 2-lane limited access facilities with decent provision of passing lanes would be appropriate for the other corridor segments. 

I think we are trying to overthink this.

Everyone seems to want to read Ports to Plains INTERSTATE corridor.

I personally think that a fully controlled access corridor there is not needed. A four-lane-divided highway would suffice in the rural areas.

Not me.  I never thought it was supposed to be all freeway anyway.

[Scott5114]

I don't like basically paying twice for roads. If we want to switch to all tolls fine but that money should exclusively be used for freeways & roads and all other user fees like registration fees and fuel taxes removed.

In Oklahoma and Kansas, at least, you don't pay twice. Toll money is used to fund the toll road system, and gas tax money is used to fund the free roads. They don't cross over. In Oklahoma, revenue from the Turner and Will Rogers turnpikes is enough that it basically covers the rest of the system.

I'm borderlining Frizt Owl territory with this and after I'll shut up about but if a connection was made from Texarkana to OKC it would provide a more direct route to Denver from New Orleans. Ideally if such a route could be justified from Louisiana to Denver crossing through OKC potentially luring some DFW traffic as well maybe it could be justified.

I think that would be a boon to Oklahoma as well. There are a lot of biggish towns in SE Oklahoma that are awkward as hell to reach from Oklahoma City-Norman (Norman to Ada is a drive I make fairly frequently, and the lack of any sort of diagonal connection between Norman and OK-3W in Pontotoc County kills me). Connecting them to the Interstate system with direct four-lane roads would be very helpful and make it easier for people to do business with those towns. At the very least we could use a "Southeast Passage" to go with the "Northwest Passage" of four-lane expressway to Woodward.

[Plutonic Panda]

I don't like basically paying twice for roads. If we want to switch to all tolls fine but that money should exclusively be used for freeways & roads and all other user fees like registration fees and fuel taxes removed.

In Oklahoma and Kansas, at least, you don't pay twice. Toll money is used to fund the toll road system, and gas tax money is used to fund the free roads. They don't cross over. In Oklahoma, revenue from the Turner and Will Rogers turnpikes is enough that it basically covers the rest of the system.

I'm borderlining Frizt Owl territory with this and after I'll shut up about but if a connection was made from Texarkana to OKC it would provide a more direct route to Denver from New Orleans. Ideally if such a route could be justified from Louisiana to Denver crossing through OKC potentially luring some DFW traffic as well maybe it could be justified.

I think that would be a boon to Oklahoma as well. There are a lot of biggish towns in SE Oklahoma that are awkward as hell to reach from Oklahoma City-Norman (Norman to Ada is a drive I make fairly frequently, and the lack of any sort of diagonal connection between Norman and OK-3W in Pontotoc County kills me). Connecting them to the Interstate system with direct four-lane roads would be very helpful and make it easier for people to do business with those towns. At the very least we could use a "Southeast Passage" to go with the "Northwest Passage" of four-lane expressway to Woodward.

That is pretty impressive. I didn't know it covered the rest of the system. Still, I wish Oklahoma would abolish toll roads completely. It would come at a cost though and taxes would have to be raised elsewhere. I think the end result would be worth it.

Regarding freeways in the SE part, I wonder when/if communities like Ada will ever become part of the CSA. Lots of weird roads having half freeway like interchanges. OkDOT should at least secure ROW for such facilities.

[bwana39]

Still, I wish Oklahoma would abolish toll roads completely. It would come at a cost though and taxes would have to be raised elsewhere. I think the end result would be worth it.

I think we all wish there were no toll roads, no fuel tax, etc. Let's go a step farther, let's abolish charging for fuel, make cars free (I want my MTV).

Toll roads serve a purpose. They are universally derided. Taxes in general are. Tolls are a very specific use tax. In most if not all cases if you choose to, you can go around them. The detour may be slower, less convenient, and less comfortable, but generally there is a free or lower cost alternative: especially for surface roads (bridges and tunnels are a slightly different story).

Toll roads while not ideal are the better choice over no roads (or just no freeways) at all. There was a huge string on the Lake Charles I-10 bridge replacement that talked about little besides "SHUNPIKING" . The bottom line is we all hate taxes, we may choose one form of tax  over another to hate more(especially if it applies directly to you), but the bottom line is we all have to pay some sort of taxes. Roads are built with taxes in one way or another.

[Plutonic Panda]

Still, I wish Oklahoma would abolish toll roads completely. It would come at a cost though and taxes would have to be raised elsewhere. I think the end result would be worth it.

I think we all wish there were no toll roads, no fuel tax, etc. Let's go a step farther, let's abolish charging for fuel, make cars free (I want my MTV).

Toll roads serve a purpose. They are universally derided. Taxes in general are. Tolls are a very specific use tax. In most if not all cases if you choose to, you can go around them. The detour may be slower, less convenient, and less comfortable, but generally there is a free or lower cost alternative: especially for surface roads (bridges and tunnels are a slightly different story).

Toll roads while not ideal are the better choice over no roads (or just no freeways) at all. There was a huge string on the Lake Charles I-10 bridge replacement that talked about little besides "SHUNPIKING" . The bottom line is we all hate taxes, we may choose one form of tax  over another to hate more(especially if it applies directly to you), but the bottom line is we all have to pay some sort of taxes. Roads are built with taxes in one way or another.

Tell that California, Utah, Arizona, Texas, etc. Guess there is no way to do it without tolls lol. I know that's a strawman but seriously there is a way to do it and suggesting to remove other sources of funding because I suggested to remove tolls is ridiculous.

[sparker]

It not only wouldn't be an impediment, deploying a "traditional" on-site toll collection system would probably provide, as the above post states, a benefit to Boise City and environs -- an area that would likely welcome a few extra employment opportunities if an outflung turnpike were to be developed.

Isn't this all going to be a moot point when OTA goes cash-less on all of Oklahoma's turnpike system? Unless I missed the mention of it elsewhere in this or another related thread, does anyone know the time line when the turnpikes will go completely cash-less?

Even for the existing cash lanes still in operation there are limits. They don't have attendants in the toll booths 24 hours per day. Overnight drivers are left on their own to feed coins into coin baskets. And if they need to make change, good luck on that bill changer! They don't always work so well. I remember one bad experience driving back to Lawton from OKC. We were at the Newcastle toll booth in my girlfriend's car. She didn't have a PikePass and avoided getting one for years. It was after midnight. We didn't have enough exact change, so we had to use a bill changer and it was crappy. It ate a couple dollars without giving me any coins. I paid upwards of $4 for what should have been around a $2 toll. Cars were backed up behind us, drivers getting irritated, etc. After that episode my girlfriend relented and finally got a PikePass.

I don't understand why some people in Oklahoma to this day still avoid getting a PikePass. Don't they realize you get a modest discount on the tolls? You don't have to slow down and stop at a toll booth (unless you're going through the crappy Walters toll booth on I-44).

My point was that a toll facility deployed as OK's portion of the P2P along US 287 would likely have to be an exception to the "cashless" policy simply because of its status as a connector between two other states.  While such things as moving violations by out-of-state drivers can provoke inter-state measures to ensure that fines are paid, simple failure to pay the five to ten bucks that a 40-mile isolated stretch would be charged to a noncommercial vehicle would likely show up on one's credit report rather than a uniformed knock on the door in the state of that vehicle's owner's residence (the service of which would cost the tolling state money out of pocket).  Of course, the states could choose to get pretty draconian about such things -- but that would likely be counterproductive in the long run.  But maybe, as iterated previously, those 40 miles could be built without tolls if enough federal money is sent that way.  Just put an EV charging station somewhere outside Boise City, accept credit/debit cards, and apportion the funds appropriately.  I for one wouldn't be a bit surprised to see the funding issue regarding EV's dealt with as an effective "excise tax" collected at the recharging sites -- and if the P2P gets some form of earmarks -- and this administration follows through on its commitment to EV technology -- the entire corridor will be built with what will be combo rest areas and recharging stations spaced regularly along the route. 

[bwana39]

It not only wouldn't be an impediment, deploying a "traditional" on-site toll collection system would probably provide, as the above post states, a benefit to Boise City and environs -- an area that would likely welcome a few extra employment opportunities if an outflung turnpike were to be developed.

Isn't this all going to be a moot point when OTA goes cash-less on all of Oklahoma's turnpike system? Unless I missed the mention of it elsewhere in this or another related thread, does anyone know the time line when the turnpikes will go completely cash-less?

Even for the existing cash lanes still in operation there are limits. They don't have attendants in the toll booths 24 hours per day. Overnight drivers are left on their own to feed coins into coin baskets. And if they need to make change, good luck on that bill changer! They don't always work so well. I remember one bad experience driving back to Lawton from OKC. We were at the Newcastle toll booth in my girlfriend's car. She didn't have a PikePass and avoided getting one for years. It was after midnight. We didn't have enough exact change, so we had to use a bill changer and it was crappy. It ate a couple dollars without giving me any coins. I paid upwards of $4 for what should have been around a $2 toll. Cars were backed up behind us, drivers getting irritated, etc. After that episode my girlfriend relented and finally got a PikePass.

I don't understand why some people in Oklahoma to this day still avoid getting a PikePass. Don't they realize you get a modest discount on the tolls? You don't have to slow down and stop at a toll booth (unless you're going through the crappy Walters toll booth on I-44).

My point was that a toll facility deployed as OK's portion of the P2P along US 287 would likely have to be an exception to the "cashless" policy simply because of its status as a connector between two other states.  While such things as moving violations by out-of-state drivers can provoke inter-state measures to ensure that fines are paid, simple failure to pay the five to ten bucks that a 40-mile isolated stretch would be charged to a noncommercial vehicle would likely show up on one's credit report rather than a uniformed knock on the door in the state of that vehicle's owner's residence (the service of which would cost the tolling state money out of pocket).  Of course, the states could choose to get pretty draconian about such things -- but that would likely be counterproductive in the long run.  But maybe, as iterated previously, those 40 miles could be built without tolls if enough federal money is sent that way.  Just put an EV charging station somewhere outside Boise City, accept credit/debit cards, and apportion the funds appropriately.  I for one wouldn't be a bit surprised to see the funding issue regarding EV's dealt with as an effective "excise tax" collected at the recharging sites -- and if the P2P gets some form of earmarks -- and this administration follows through on its commitment to EV technology -- the entire corridor will be built with what will be combo rest areas and recharging stations spaced regularly along the route.

Louisiana suspends drivers licenses, holds renewals on registration, and will pull professional licenses for claims over ANY and all unpaid tolls in Texas.  I might give you the Oklahoma panhandle is a bad place for a tollway. I was discussing tolls as a user levy in general, not for this specific place.

[Bobby5280]

Essentially there is no "free lunch" when it comes to using highways. You're going to pay for using them either at toll gates or at the gasoline pump. Some states collect considerably more in fuel taxes than others (such as Oklahoma) and/or collect considerably more at toll gates too. Oklahoma could get rid of its turnpikes, but it would result in massive increases in fuel taxes.

The way things are going, I really believe it's a possibility we may start seeing toll tag readers or license plate cameras set up to charge tolls on a lot of regular highways and even city streets.

I didn't get a PikePass for years simply because I didn't use the turnpikes often enough to bother with setting up (I live on the opposite side of the OKC metro from the Kilpatrick Turnpike, and rarely have a reason to go to Lawton or Tulsa–any time I wanted to use a turnpike, it was known well enough in advance that I could grab my change jar). I only got one in preparation of a trip to South Texas so I could use TX-130. Now I use it fairly frequently, since one of the businesses I own is located off the Norman Spur.

I've had a PikePass since around 2000. I had avoided getting one for several years, but caved after a really infuriating experience at the recently completed Newcastle toll booth on I-44. Some clown in an old pickup truck hauling a trailer caused a really long traffic jam because he was arguing with the toll booth clerk over his toll and number of axles. I swore I'd never allow myself to be held up by such selfish idiocy on the highway ever again. That Monday after the weekend I was at the tag agency getting a PikePass (back when they were the portable soap bar variety).

I personally would love an OKC to Denver interstate. If such an initiative like P2P is funded I agree that lots of the northern portions likely won't be full interstate but I find it odd how OKC was not included with the influence zone on the map yet far flung cities to the north are. Are all of these cities marketing themselves for this or was that just purely conceptual by the senators who proposed this?

I think the Ports to Plains Corridor idea was first floated back in the 1990's. IIRC it was deemed a "high priority corridor" when all those HPCs rolled out many years ago. Someone else might know who first conceived the idea. Nevertheless it is common for lawmakers to back or oppose such projects.

To me OKC to Denver makes just as much sense as the I-44 going from OKC to St Louis. It would be a 180° flip of how I-44 operates, providing a more direct connection from Northwest parts of the US to the Deep South. An OKC-Denver Interstate would have been nonsense 30 years ago, but with how population in the US has been shifting such a corridor makes much more sense now.

And, yes, I think a OKC-Denver Interstate would be that much better if it extended from OKC to the Texarkana area, where it could connect with I-49. That would create a fairly direct Denver to New Orleans route. As Scott5114 said, the route would indeed be beneficial to Oklahoma. Right now we just have 2-lane OK-3 sort of serving that purpose in SE OK. For Texas traffic coming up from DFW and going to Denver the route up I-35 to this route going straight to Limon would probably be more direct than using US-287.

[kphoger]

To me OKC to Denver makes just as much sense as the I-44 going from OKC to St Louis. It would be a 180° flip of how I-44 operates, providing a more direct connection from Northwest parts of the US to the Deep South. An OKC-Denver Interstate would have been nonsense 30 years ago, but with how population in the US has been shifting such a corridor makes much more sense now.

Well, almost as much sense.  I-44 is part of one of the two main routes from Chicago to Dallas & Laredo.  It's hard to top that sort of commercial traffic draw.

(Of course, saying that might steer this thread into discussion about Interstate-ing US-69/US-75 in Oklahoma, but that's for another thread.)

[Bobby5280]

The Interstate highway system has several diagonal corridors of significance that run from the Southwest up to the Northeast. But there are very few running the opposite direction, Northwest down to Southeast. There are none in the geographical center of the nation. That's why I argue the OKC to Denver leg is a giant hole in the system.

I-44 is an important corridor, but in the bigger picture I-70 Eastward from St Louis continues the diagonal line I-44 starts from OKC. A considerable amount of cross-country traffic uses that corridor, such as vehicles moving from New York to Los Angeles.

The combination of I-20 & I-30 in Texas to I-40 thru Tennessee is another long diagonal. And that dovetails into the continuing line of I-59/I-75/I-40/I-81. All of I-85 is a SW to NE diagonal.

The Northwest US has large metros such as Denver (and the other Front Range cities), Salt Lake, Portland and Seattle. The Boise area is growing fast. There are very few Interstate routes serving that region of the nation compared to a far more densely packed Interstate system in the East. None of those locations in the Northwest have direct diagonal access from the edge of the Rockies down to the Deep South and Gulf Coast. In most scenarios drivers coming from the Northwest pretty much have to cross the Mississippi before finding any freeways that run diagonal toward the South.

The Ports to Plains Corridor design will help vehicles traveling from the Front Range cities to South Texas without having to deal with Raton Pass. But it doesn't really do much to move traffic more effectively to destinations such as Memphis, Atlanta, Nashville, New Orleans, etc. A direct leg from Denver to OKC would do that.

[kphoger]

The Northwest US has large metros such as Denver (and the other Front Range cities), Salt Lake, Portland and Seattle. The Boise area is growing fast. There are very few Interstate routes serving that region of the nation compared to a far more densely packed Interstate system in the East. None of those locations in the Northwest have direct diagonal access from the edge of the Rockies down to the Deep South and Gulf Coast. In most scenarios drivers coming from the Northwest pretty much have to cross the Mississippi before finding any freeways that run diagonal toward the South.

The Ports to Plains Corridor design will help vehicles traveling from the Front Range cities to South Texas without having to deal with Raton Pass. But it doesn't really do much to move traffic more effectively to destinations such as Memphis, Atlanta, Nashville, New Orleans, etc. A direct leg from Denver to OKC would do that.

Yeah.  I'm just saying that the sheer volume of NE-SW commercial traffic is hard to match, especially when it comes to commercial traffic.  'Large city' does not equal 'major logistics hub'.

[Bobby5280]

There is a larger volume of traffic moving between the Southwestern US and the Northeastern US. As such there are multiple diagonal Interstate corridors running in parallel to serve that traffic. There needs to be at least one proper diagonal corridor flipped 180° the opposite direction from Northwest US to Southeast US. Denver and OKC are major hub cities in their own right. They should be connected directly with a high quality super highway link. That would solve a good bit of the problem. Other corridors would have to be addressed too. I think I-22 should be extended from Birmingham down thru Columbus, GA and to Jacksonville, FL. And I think a good case could be made to extend what is now I-555 to Springfield, MO.

[Plutonic Panda]

I've wondered what route people usually take from LA to NYC or vice versa. Part of me thinks I-40 to I-44 point NE is the best but lots of people I know take I-15 to I-70(weather depending of course).